If you hoard weapons for the express purpose of overturning the elected administration, then you are many things. A patriot isn’t one of them. Blind adherence to a single amendment does not make you a champion of the Constitution itself. Violent intent towards the duly-elected government does not make you a friend to the nation. There is in fact an accurate word for this species of plotting: treason.

Yes, I know — it’s a matter of arming civilians against tyranny. That in itself is not a monstrous concept, and you find something of that in the Founders’ fear of a standing army, and hence in the Second Amendment itself.

Note, however: you don’t get to define “tyrant” any which way you’d like. John Wilkes Booth, for example, clearly thought that Abraham Lincoln fit the description. After shooting the president, he famously announced: “sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”). Hence, he was simply exercising his constitutional rights, right?

Sadly for Booth, Americans did not much agree with his assessment of Lincoln. Booth saw himself as ridding the nation of a tyrant, but the nation mostly saw him as the treasonous assassin of their elected leader. See how this works? It’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it.

Ignore the example he uses and everything else he says, and focus on his argument. The popular vote determines the public good. Or, might makes right. It’s an appeal to authority, with the authority being determined in the voting booth. It’s a form of the genetic fallacy.

Well, speaking of perspective, I have my weapons for a great multitude of reasons rather than for one express reason. I guess that exempts me from his charges of treason. As for being unpatriotic, regardless of who is in office or what the particular policy being debated, it seems terribly wrong to tell me that my rights are subject to a popular vote and that my perspective must be subservient to the poll. If so, then they aren’t “rights” by any measure of the word.